Hey Slowwy! You should be proud of your daughter!

[kentonio]

You really do not seem to get that you do not have a corner on human empathy, compassion, or any other positive quality.

I certainly don't have a corner on those things, there's various other people who display them frequently. What riles me is the large number of people who do not.

You don't seem to get that different people in different places are going to have experiences, values and priorities that are different from yours and most of the people who live near you. The different culture they are in, and the different priorities they have will lead to actions different from yours given a very similar set of facts.

I understand the concept of moral relativism, but being born in the USA does not excuse people acting like immoral *******s. As shown by the large number of wonderful, kind people who live all across the US. When a rich kid from New York State or an Canadian immigrant to Texas start showing deeply anti-social and callous attitudes, should we just smile and nod because of their difference in local culture? Should anyone, particularly in the first world be given a pass like that on basic decency?

You don't seem to get that your inappropriate use of loaded terms and phrases (vigilante, extra-judicial killing, lack of respect for human life, etc) shut down minds to your message rather than encouraging useful discussion. I find this all rather baffling as I thought you had a background in history and should be well aware of the many pitfalls you throw yourself into.

It was ironic in this case considering I wasn't arguing against the womans right to defend herself, which was probably why I was careless in that regard.

You don't seem to get that you come across as a pompous, arrogant, pretentious git in this thread (and some others); the British equivalent of the quintessential 'ugly American.' It's a shame, because you are an intelligent, knowledgeable person. When you are not on some holier-than-thou horse you say some interesting things.

The point where I start sounding like that is generally the point where I'm deeply frustrated by either a lack of comprehension or I'm just super pissed off with people. Yeah, it's probably ******* behaviour, but it's rarely in a vaccuum.

[kentonio]

You're smart enough to open wikipedia but too dumb to open up a catechism?

Please explain to my ignorant self. Are you saying that the catholic church was following ungodly teachings for much of its existence?

[Ben Kenobi]

Please explain to my ignorant self. Are you saying that the catholic church was following ungodly teachings for much of its existence?

Interesting tack. You want to try to claim a monopoly on 'right thinking'.

2251 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: "Do not slay the innocent and the righteous." The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. the law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.

Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

2264

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.

So in this case, self-defense is lawful.

2261

The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

And there's the answer to your question.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM

As I said, RTFM.

[kentonio]

Sorry, still not any the wiser. All I'm looking for is an explanation of how on one hand you can say you're against capital punishment because you're a Catholic, yet on the other the Holy See carried out hundreds of executions. Genuinely just curious about how you can reconcile those two things.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sorry, still not any the wiser. All I'm looking for is an explanation of how on one hand you can say you're against capital punishment because you're a Catholic, yet on the other the Holy See carried out hundreds of executions. Genuinely just curious about how you can reconcile those two things.

given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

You miss this part? The Church opposes it now because you can effectively repress crime in this fashion. Not the case in medieval times.

[kentonio]

Come on now seriously, you're trying to say that in medieval times the only way to repress crime was to execute people?

Like..

Alessandro d'Andrea, hanged at the Ponte Sant'Angelo, convicted of the theft of a watch (February 1, 1800).

?

[Ben Kenobi]

Come on now seriously, you're trying to say that in medieval times the only way to repress crime was to execute people?

Funny date that. Go read your history. What happened 15 February 1798?

[kentonio]

What exactly does a watch thief in the Holy See have to do with some event happening two years later? I assume you're talking about Griswold and Lyon, which also puts it on another continent and has literally no connection whatsoever? If not, please try and be at least vaguely specific for once.

[Ben Kenobi]

What exactly does a watch thief in the Holy See have to do with some event happening two years later? I assume you're talking about Griswold and Lyon, which also puts it on another continent and has literally no connection whatsoever? If not, please try and be at least vaguely specific for once.

The master of the Papal states at the time, was not the Pope. The Pope was deposed by:

Wait for it.

The masters of law and justice and empathy and human compassion.



Who followed up his former master and instructor.

[kentonio]

Ok, what about Fra Dolcino, Italian preacher of the Dulcinian movement (1304), burned for heresy?

Dolcino and his wife were pursued and captured by the Inquisition, then castrated and torn to pieces, limb by limb, the pieces afterward burned by the public executioner.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ok, what about Fra Dolcino, Italian preacher of the Dulcinian movement (1304), burned for heresy?

Dolcino himself preached that executing Catholics was licit because in executing them he was providing them redemption and curing them of their sin.

Oddly enough (or perhaps not odd at all), he was the Patron saint of Robespierre and his boys, who cited him as an *inspiration*.

[MrFun]

Very true. Anyone who picks up an instrument intending it as a weapon without martial arts training is essentially a waste. Be it knife, broom handle (staff), fireplace poker, bat, or golf club (Short stick). Its a truism that practically any weapon requires training to be deadly. The defining reason why guns are the exception are range (i.e no need to close with the enemy), extreme lethality and rate of fire.

I don't think you need any training to grab a bat, and use it in self-defense.

[kentonio]

Dolcino himself preached that executing Catholics was licit because in executing them he was providing them redemption and curing them of their sin.

Why would you care about the preachings of a heretic? Does a sense of irony forgive other sins?

[giblets]

You miss this part? The Church opposes it now because you can effectively repress crime in this fashion. Not the case in medieval times.

You can't keep people locked up in medieval times? I find that hard to believe.

[Nikolai]

It's valid to defend yourself and your loved ones, even to the point of death if there is no other option. It's not valid to celebrate any person's death.